UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc.
1:22-cv-06727
S.D.N.Y.Aug 8, 2025Background
- Aziz Awad, a non-party who previously withdrew from the suit, filed a motion to intervene, a request for appointment of pro bono counsel, and discovery responses.
- The court’s opinion specifically addresses Awad’s request for pro bono counsel and his discovery filings, not the motion to intervene (which will be addressed separately).
- In civil litigation, there is generally no right to court-appointed counsel as there is in criminal cases.
- To receive appointed counsel in a civil case, an indigent litigant must apply to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
- Awad has neither applied for in forma pauperis status nor is he currently a party to the action.
- The court notes that pro bono appointments are discretionary and sparingly granted to preserve limited volunteer resources for deserving cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of pro bono counsel for non-party | Awad seeks appointment | No position noted | Denied as premature; Awad is not a party nor indigent yet |
| Filing discovery responses on the docket | Awad filed responses | Not specified | Improper; discovery responses should not be filed on docket |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (sets forth standards for appointment of pro bono counsel in civil cases)
- Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1989) (explains discretion and factors for pro bono counsel and preserving attorney resources)
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (clarifies that courts can only request, not appoint, counsel in civil cases)
- Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 1997) (court must decide each pro bono request on its own facts)